Chamber
Plenary, 02 Nov 2006
02 Nov 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Financial Powers <br />(Scottish Parliament)
This morning's debate is not a debate about the powers of this Parliament; it is a debate about having a debate about the powers of this Parliament. I would have thought that, although we might want to spend more than an hour and a quarter debating what the proposed additional powers might be, debating whether we ought to have a debate on that subject should be easily accomplished in the time that has been allocated today. On the face of it, the amendment in my name might appear to aim to change significantly the motion in the name of Jim Mather, but it would in fact broaden his motion. If we are to have a debate on the powers of the Parliament, we should not restrict that to merely the financial but consider the non-financial aspects as well.
We should also recognise, as my amendment does explicitly, that we can have that debate without in any way, shape or form prejudicing the integrity of the United Kingdom. I understand where the nationalists will come from when they contribute to that debate but, equally, the unionist parties in the Parliament will put forward a unionist perspective. Those of us who believe in the strength of the United Kingdom have nothing to be scared of in debating the subject. If the union is as strong as I believe it to be, it can easily withstand a vigorous debate on the subject.
The key question to consider in framing the debate is how we make the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government more effective and more accountable. This morning's first debate will surely tell anyone who wishes to scrutinise the Scottish Government that there is a real need to make it more accountable. Perhaps the First Minister's logic is that the Government's problems of accountability are due to the incompetence of his ministers. Perhaps that is why he sees no need to debate the subject and why he has set his face against even discussing it.
I have some sympathy with part of Richard Baker's argument. We should use the powers that we have as effectively as we can and we should consider how we could use our current powers to grow the economy and to deliver improved public services. However, doing that does not preclude consideration of whether those powers are sufficient and whether they could be changed. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Scotland Act 1998 is absolutely perfect. After all, did not Donald Dewar say that devolution was a process rather than an event?
We should also recognise, as my amendment does explicitly, that we can have that debate without in any way, shape or form prejudicing the integrity of the United Kingdom. I understand where the nationalists will come from when they contribute to that debate but, equally, the unionist parties in the Parliament will put forward a unionist perspective. Those of us who believe in the strength of the United Kingdom have nothing to be scared of in debating the subject. If the union is as strong as I believe it to be, it can easily withstand a vigorous debate on the subject.
The key question to consider in framing the debate is how we make the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government more effective and more accountable. This morning's first debate will surely tell anyone who wishes to scrutinise the Scottish Government that there is a real need to make it more accountable. Perhaps the First Minister's logic is that the Government's problems of accountability are due to the incompetence of his ministers. Perhaps that is why he sees no need to debate the subject and why he has set his face against even discussing it.
I have some sympathy with part of Richard Baker's argument. We should use the powers that we have as effectively as we can and we should consider how we could use our current powers to grow the economy and to deliver improved public services. However, doing that does not preclude consideration of whether those powers are sufficient and whether they could be changed. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Scotland Act 1998 is absolutely perfect. After all, did not Donald Dewar say that devolution was a process rather than an event?
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5055, in the name of Jim Mather, on the financial powers of the Parliament. I advise members that we are ...
Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
I note the absence of any Executive presence for this debate. No minister is here. We saw the Executive trying to keep the Howat review under wraps, but I ha...
Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Jim Mather:
SNP
I would like to make some progress first.More and more people are realising that it is difficult to compete and prosper when we have no economic powers. Howe...
Ms Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) (Lab):
Lab
The member indicated a desire to learn from other countries. I wonder whether he can name a single country that has adopted fiscal autonomy.
Jim Mather:
SNP
Navarre, the Basque Country, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Scotland, uniquely, has a system that damages its people; we need to learn from those o...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind) rose—
Ind
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) rose—
LD
Jim Mather:
SNP
I will take an intervention from Jeremy Purvis.
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
The member mentions Lord Vallance. Does he know that Lord Vallance, as a member of the Steel commission, absolutely rejected fiscal autonomy and independence...
Jim Mather:
SNP
Mr Purvis may have read the motion or he may not. The motion calls for a debate. I respect Lord Vallance's views and I respect Jeremy Purvis's views; I want ...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I suggest that Gerald Warner might take that view.I will be supporting this welcome motion, but will the member confirm that fiscal autonomy—even full fiscal...
Jim Mather:
SNP
It would be a step on the road, and I repeat to Mr Purvis that the motion is about having a debate, scrutinising all the options, considering the legitimate ...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
While the Scottish National Party tries to ensure that the Parliament endlessly debates its powers, Labour is using them to grow our economy and to deliver p...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
Absolutely. We want independence. That is a perfectly honourable position to take. Why will the Labour Party not support a referendum and allow the people to...
Richard Baker:
Lab
The people have made that choice in every Scottish election. The choice will be put before the Scottish people again at next year's elections. We will willin...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Does Mr Baker recall that the Scottish Constitutional Convention recommended that a second constitutional convention should be convened after the first sessi...
Richard Baker:
Lab
My view is that it is too early to convene another convention after just two sessions of the first Parliament that we have had in 300 years.No one should be ...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member give way?
Richard Baker:
Lab
I would give way, but so little time has been allowed for the debate that I am unable to do so.That record has enabled us to have an effective policy of our ...
Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
This morning's debate is not a debate about the powers of this Parliament; it is a debate about having a debate about the powers of this Parliament. I would ...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Derek Brownlee said that we should use the powers that we currently have. Can he confirm whether the Conservative party is in favour of using the existing ta...
Derek Brownlee:
Con
We may make our views clear in September 2007 so as not to prejudice the outcome of any current process. Laughter. After all, I am sure that Mr Rumbles, like...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
There is no doubting that Jim Mather is a reasonable man. In this Parliament, in December 2003, he outlined the SNP's position of wanting a debate about fisc...
Ms Maureen Watt (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Does the present devolution settlement accord with the Liberal Democrat idea of fiscal federalism? If it does not, what other powers should the Parliament ha...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
The answer is no. That is why, two years ago, the Liberal Democrats established the Steel commission. As Duncan Hamilton said in The Scotsman in March, its r...
Jim Mather:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
I am afraid that I do not have time.The SNP has not presented costed policies on pensions or higher education, but only recently the shadow minister for soci...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have engaged in the debate and have made use of the fact that an open motion is before us tha...
Richard Baker:
Lab
What is wrong with sticking with the status quo when it delivers a strong Scotland that has consistent economic growth, provides jobs and has record investme...